Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/16

Amrinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manger , united Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sharnjeet Singh Rattan

31 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

 

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 16 of 15.07.2020

                                 Date of decision                    :    31.03.2022

 

Amrinder Singh Loomba, aged about 45 years, son of Sh. Raghubir Singh, resident of House No.18, Contractor Colony, Nangal, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar. 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Naya Nangal, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar

 

   ...Opposite Party

 

                         Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

 

                        SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

 

Sh. S.S. Rattan, Adv. counsel for complainant  

Sh. Jatinderpal Singh, Adv. counsel for O.P. 

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the complainant was the registered owner of the Tanker bearing registration No.PB-12H-2788, which was insured by the O.P. company vide insurance policy No.11090033114P1091093570 w.e.f. 10.02.2015 to 09.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-. On 28.10.2016, the complainant met with an accident in the area of Village Barhedi, Near Jind City, Haryana. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police P.S. Sadar, Jind, Haryana and the police registered G.D. No.037 dated 30.01.2016 and he also informed to the office of O.P. about the said accident, the surveyor for assessing the loss of the tanker was appointed by the O.P. Company, who conducted the survey to the accidental tanker on 30.01.2016. The said surveyor namely Surinder Kumar Juneja, issued the receipt to the complainant regarding the spot survey and thereafter, the complainant brought the tanker to Nangal by towing it from Jind and approached the O.P. many times for the final survey, supplied the documents which are demanded by the O.P. After that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 12.01.2018 to the O.P. for the purpose of conducting the final survey and to pay the claim of the tanker in question but the O.P. failed to give reply of the said legal notice and also failed to pay the claim of the tanker in question. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

1. To pay the claim of the tanker to the complainant of Rs.1,60,000/- along with interest. 
2. To pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 
3. To pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses
4. In reply, the O.P. has challenging the veracity of the complaint on the ground of maintainability & deficiency. On merits, it is stated that it is the obligatory duty on the part of the insured that insured will immediately inform the insurance company in writing about accidental loss or damage if any caused to insured vehicle. In the absence of such intimation, or failure of insured to perform his own part, the contract of insurance will not shelter and will not provide any advantage of indemnify the insured in such circumstances, if insured fails to inform immediately to insurance company if any loss or damage caused to insured vehicle. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and an effective driving license to drive the vehicle as a hazardous carriage goods vehicle. As per the GR No.18116 issued to subject vehicle bearing registered No.PB-12-H-2788 dated 26.01.2016 at the time of accident was being carried HCL ACID (i.e. Hydrochloric Acid) which falls in the class of hazardous and horrendous goods/substance under head of Corrosive as mentioned under Table II of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, which is very hazard and dangerous goods to human life and circle. So, the complainant abusively failed to provide the desired documents to the OP to settle the claim and totally failed to complied with the directions by this learned Forum, so the present claim/complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismiss on the part of the sole negligence of the complainant himself. In its reply, the OP has quoted many rules of Central Motor Vehicle, 1989. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C18 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. has tendered copy of insurance policy Ex.OP1/A along with documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/D and closed the evidence.   

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    Complainant counsel Sh. S.S. Rattan, made prayer that Amrinder Singh Loomba, purchased one policy relating to tanker bearing registration No.PB-12H-2788 for the valid period w.e.f. 10.02.2015 to 09.02.2016 from the O.P. Unfortunately, the tanker met with an accident on 28.1.2016 and O.P. was informed who appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. On 30.1.2016, surveyor namely Surinder Kumar Juneja, visited the spot but thereafter till today. O.P. did not allow the claim. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint.

7.    Sh. Jatinderpal Singh, counsel for the O.P. argued that the driving license issued by the RTO, Faridkot was not having endorsement to drive dangerous and hazardous goods but the driver on the date of accident was driving the vehicle with hazardous goods.  He also argued that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle. The complainant never informed to the insurance company about the alleged accident immediately and the intimation was given by the complainant to the OP on 5.11.2019 approximately after three years of alleged occurrence, which is abuse and fundamental violation of the insurance policy. He also argued that endorsement of driving license for carrying hazardous goods was required and absence of endorsement clearly indicates absence of valid and effective driving license required for that particular class of vehicle.  Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 8.   Complainant is resident of Nangal (Ropar), O.P. is having office is also in this District. Tanker was purchased and it was insured with the O.P.  Complainant placed on file policy and also produced other various documents. O.P. has repudiated the claim of the complainant. So, it is a consumer dispute and this forum has territorial jurisdiction.

9.    Now the first question before us is that whether at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving license or not?.

10.  On perusal of materials available on record, it is found that the Driving License issued by the Licensing Authority was for Light Motor Vehicle and Transport Vehicle, but there was no endorsement made permitting for driving vehicle for the purpose of transporting hazardous goods. Though, the driver had obtained one certificate Ex.Z1 upon three days training course on “Safe Transportation of Hazardous Goods” as per rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 from 29.12.2015 to 31.12.2015 endorsed by the competent authority but it was not incorporated in the license of the driver by the RTO.  It is evident from the extract of Driving License that the Driver had valid license to drive transport vehicle from 28.03.2012. The certificate for transporting hazardous goods was obtained during the policy period of the insured vehicle. In the absence of such endorsement the insurance company repudiated the claim of the OP on the ground of violation of the policy condition.

10.  It is important to mention here that the competent authority had issued a certificate certifying that driver had underwent training as per Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules during the period 29.12.2015 to 31.12.2015. This certificate duly confirms that driver had underwent training in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and hence there is no violation of this rule on the part of the driver.  This fact clearly shows that driver had underwent training and was authorized to drive the hazardous goods.

11.  The controversial point in the present complaint is squarely covered by the order/judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, in FAO No.1210 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs Harbans Kaur, decided on 26.3.2018, wherein it has been observed as under:-

“The question that now arises would be whether such a breach of not having obtained necessary endorsement as required under Sub Rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, is so fundamental as to have contributed to the cause of accident. The answer, at the outset, appears to be in the negative. It is nobody’s case that the accident took place because of dangerous or hazardous substance being carried in the vehicle. On the contrary, there is no challenge to findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence in driving the offending tanker. In the given scenario, carrying or non carrying of dangerous or hazardous substance has no nexus with the cause of accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. In this view of the matter, it can safely be held that the breach complained of by the insurer is not so fundamental as is found to have contributed to the cause of accident.

       This apart, perusal of Rule 9 of the Rules would make it evident that before a driver can file an application for obtaining necessary endorsement as required under sub rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, he is to undergo some training for a period of two to three days but the same does not deal with the professional skill of driving. With regard to professional skill of driving, it has already been clarified by the licensing authority at the time of granting license to the driver authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle. When the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh’s case (Supra) coupled with the discussion made hereinbefore, I am inclined to agree with what has been held by the Division Bench of thee Madhya Pradesh High Court in Beghelkhand Filling Station and Another’s case (supra). This court in Rajesh Singh’s case (Supra) has neither adverted to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh’ case nor judgments by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Gujrat. In this view of the matter, insurance company can neither escape its liability to pay compensation nor press for right of recovery merely for want of endorsement required under rule 9(3) of the Rules on the license held by driver of the offending vehicle”.

12. Moreover, the learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record the surveyor report Ex.C16, vide which the surveyor has assessed the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-

13. In view of the above discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, we are of the opinion that mere endorsement on the driving license does not increase the professional skill of the driver. The Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to the pay the genuine claim of the complainant. So the letter dated 23.12.2019 written by the Insurance Company to the complainant vide which Insurance Company has repudiated his claim is not in order and the complainant is entitled for the claim.

14.        In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled for claim and the present complaint deserves to be allowed with the following directions to the OP:-

1. To pay the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 23.12.2019 till actual realization. 
2. To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation
3. To pay Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses 

15.         The OP is further directed to comply with the order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.  

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                                       (RANJIT SINGH)

          Dated.31.03.2022                                                 PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               

                                                                   (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                                      MEMBER